The MCC Discussion Thread

[Rithaniel]

That works for me. I'll keep an eye out and re-randomize the groups, when it's posted, for fairness's sake.

Void, let's both get our judgments in within 24 hours after that.

[haywire]

I have submitted, thanks again for waiting up for me

[Raptorchan]

Okay, who signs up to be a judge for August, besides me?

[void_nothing]

Okay, who signs up to be a judge for August, besides me?

You can start a judge signup thread early and I'll sticky it.

[Raptorchan]

Will do.

[Rithaniel]

My judgments for July Round 2 are in.

[Riria]

(2.5/3) Balance - Affinity for enchantments is still affinity, meaning this can come down early, which can be very strong despite the setup needed. That activated ability is potentially really powerful, after all.

Believe it or not, I initially had it as a 5 mana card ). I eventually moved it to 6 after I thought about it for five seconds. Was considering 7 too but the submission time was joever at that point.

[bravelion83]

@Rithaniel Clarification request for July Round 3:

Flavor text would likely be useful here.

Where does flavor text fit in the frame of a battle card? I see no realistic way of making it fit in the frame used in MOM, which is the only time we've seen battle cards so far. Are we supposed to assume the frame would be adjusted to fit some flavor text in it, or are we supposed to make really short rules text so that reminder text for battles AND flavor text also fit?

[Riria]

@Rithaniel Clarification question for the MCC rules in general:

I'm assuming the rule that a submission isn't allowed to contain anything except the card also bars CR excerpts, right? So, for example, if a card has a new permanent subtype with mechanical baggage, the reminder text should comprehensively communicate that baggage?

Follow-up question:

If a hypothetical card does not directly communicate enough about how it works within its own textbox to be intuitively used correctly, but the missing information is information that would in fact be missing if that were an official card printed by Wizards, what categories would this deduct points from? (Imagine, for example, that planeswalkers didn't exist in the official game, someone made a custom card that introduced the concept of the planeswalker card type, and the custom card did not indicate anywhere in its text that creatures can attack it)

[bravelion83]

Answering this as the author of the guidelines document (link in my signature).

I'm assuming the rule that a submission isn't allowed to contain anything except the card also bars CR excerpts, right?

Yes. Anything that isn't the text card and the optional render, and a CR excerpt isn't either of those, so it's forbidden unless explicitly required by the round challenges.

So, for example, if a card has a new permanent subtype with mechanical baggage, the reminder text should comprehensively communicate that baggage?

Again, yes. Reminder text is essentially the only means that you have to communicate rules baggage under ordinary circumstances, that is, again, unless required by the round challenges.

but the missing information is information that would in fact be missing if that were an official card printed by Wizards

The only thing that falls into this category is reminder text if it doesn't fit on the card on a rare or mythic. Nothing else comes to mind to which this would apply.

Follow-up question:

If a hypothetical card does not directly communicate enough about how it works within its own textbox to be intuitively used correctly, (above quote), what categories would this deduct points from? (Imagine, for example, that planeswalkers didn't exist in the official game, someone made a custom card that introduced the concept of the planeswalker card type, and the custom card did not indicate anywhere in its text that creatures can attack it)

I can see deducting points in the following areas:

Elegance - Mainly because of comprehension complexity, of if you prefer, because players can't understand how it works. Also, if it's due to lack of room, it means that the text is quite long, and that's another strike against it in this area.

Viability - Here three things count: color pie, rarity, rules. This would fall into the latter, as it definitely sounds like a rules problem. Not in the sense that the rules don't support what you're trying to do, but that they aren't either already known or explained directly on the card (usually via reminder text).

Balance - Here I'm thinking as a judge. If the players can't understand what the card does, the judge probably won't either. So the problem is: as a judge, how can you judge the balance of a card that you don't fully understand how it's supposed to work? You just can't. I have found myself in that situation as a judge before, and let me you, it's not easy at all. If I, as the judge, don't understand how a card works, I also can't understand how it interacts in all the different formats: limited, competitive constructed (Standard, Pioneer, Modern, in rare cases Legacy or Vintage), casual constructed, and multiplayer (including 2HG and Commander).

Main Challenge and Subchallenges - If the card is so incomprehensible that a judge can't even understand whether or not it fits the round challenges.

I don't think Appeal and Flavor would be affected. Uniqueness will probably be either very high, because it's a thing that has never existed before, or very low, justified by saying that a thing that has never been done before is useless anyway if you can't understand it. Quality would probably depend on the specific proposed wording.

Again, the host can create challenges that deviate by the guidelines, but that's not supposed to be the norm anyway. When it happens, the host has the final say on the challenges they created.


Speaking as a competitor instead, this is one of the reasons I asked the clarification above. I can't see how reminder text for battles in general and the battle subtype, plus rules text, plus reminder text, can all fit in the battle frame that we've seen in MOM. If the battle card has a new subtype, the reminder text will have to say what a battle type says: who's the protector and what happens when the last defense counter is removed (which is NOT defined anywhere in the rules as "defeating" the battle, by the way). If you want the most room available, the easiest solution would probably be to make a battle with no subtypes (and thus no extra rules baggage), and possibly making it rare or mythic so that you can drop reminder text if there is no room for it. In that case, you're getting rid of reminder text entirely and you'd probably gain the room to add some flavor text, and even then you'd probably have to keep it short. Consider for example that the only battle card in MOM with no reminder text is Invasion of Alara, which is a rare. Even Invasion of Tarkir has it, and it's a mythic.

[Riria]

The only thing that falls into this category is reminder text if it doesn't fit on the card on a rare or mythic. Nothing else comes to mind to which this would apply.

Yeah, in terms of practical applications, this is precisely the kind of thing I was considering. And it does make sense why doing that in a custom card would get penalized, even though if the card got printed in the official game it wouldn't actually have the reminder text. Just wanted to be sure.

Do gotta say tho. Deliberately tanking a microtext penalty to fit in what you need is sometimes a sane strategic choice :3.

[bravelion83]

Also, another thing @Rithaniel, sorry if I keep bothering you.

There are no established rules for non-siege battles

This is incorrect. There are established rules for battles that aren't Sieges: there is the whole section 310 of the CR that's about battles, defining default rules for battles with no subtype: you're the protector and the battle is put into the graveyard as a SBA if its defense is 0 and it's not the source of an ability on the stack. All a battle subtype does is changing those two things: who's the protector (an opponent for Sieges), and what happens when the battle is "defeated" (exile and then cast transformed for Sieges). Battles with no subtypes are fully supported by the rules as they are right now, they've just never printed any yet. They could just print one right now and they wouldn't even have to touch the CR. What is not there yet are rules for battle subtypes other than Siege, not for non-Siege battles in general. In fact I'm about to post my submission right now, and it purposefully is a rare battle with no subtypes, so I can technically leave out reminder text. The problem is that I have a one-sentence long flavor text for it that's a quote from the Round 1 character that's been assigned to me, so it takes two lines (the attribution is always in its own separate line), and it doesn't fit, not even with reminder text removed. For now I'll submit my current idea with no reminder text and no flavor text, but I do have flavor text already written for it. I guess I'll just post it here after the round has ended, unless I just change my sumbission wholly if I find something shorter that still satisfies me.

[Rithaniel]

Where does flavor text fit in the frame of a battle card?

It doesn't. That can be interpreted as part of the challenge. Do you go for a simpler effect, like Anguished Unmaking, so that you can increase the room for flavor? Do you try to get all your flavor from the names and mechanics. Flavor text can help, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to make use of it.

However, as an aside, frame type is a part of the card. As card designers, I fully believe that it's in our purview to change the design of the card frame. After all, maybe the wide frame is unique to sieges. I'm willing to accept design notes that indicate a different frame is being used.

I'm assuming the rule that a submission isn't allowed to contain anything except the card also bars CR excerpts, right? So, for example, if a card has a new permanent subtype with mechanical baggage, the reminder text should comprehensively communicate that baggage?

Yes. Generally you need a new player to be able to pick up the card and quickly develop a general understanding of how the card works. So reminder text, if present, should communicate as much of the baggage as possible.

If a hypothetical card does not directly communicate enough about how it works within its own textbox to be intuitively used correctly, but the missing information is information that would in fact be missing if that were an official card printed by Wizards, what categories would this deduct points from? (Imagine, for example, that planeswalkers didn't exist in the official game, someone made a custom card that introduced the concept of the planeswalker card type, and the custom card did not indicate anywhere in its text that creatures can attack it)

Interesting hypothetical. Another would be in creatures were a new thing. Reminder text could potentially require mentions of how the turn order has changed to accommodate the combat phase. Something with sweeping changes as radical as this would probably require comprehensive rule revision. In such a case, the rule against CR excerpts could have an exception, but, also, such an extreme case might not be the best option for the competition.

I agree with bravelion's assessment of the places things could go wrong. I'd probably be most forgiving on the "balance" front and most ruthless on the "viability" front, because truly massive rules changes that require CR clarifications are not something that you want to do very often.

The only thing that falls into this category is reminder text if it doesn't fit on the card on a rare or mythic.

Yes, the rule here is that you can include the reminder text in the entry, but the judge should consider the card as not having been printed with reminder text for the purpose of microtext. This can lead to a point against viability as removal of "new" reminder text is usually reserved for rares and mythics.

Also, yea, tanking a point on microtext is an option

Also, another thing @Rithaniel, sorry if I keep bothering you.

There are no established rules for non-siege battles

This is incorrect. There are established rules for battles that aren't Sieges: there is the whole section 310 of the CR that's about battles, defining default rules for battles with no subtype: you're the protector and the battle is put into the graveyard as a SBA if its defense is 0 and it's not the source of an ability on the stack.

You're no bother. I was asleep.

But alright, I will edit the thread to be more accurate to reality.

TL;DR -- Card frames are a part of card design, so you can specify what card frame you would like your card to use. Also, reminder text can be included in the submission and then treated as though it weren't actually printed on the card.

[Feyd_Ruin]

Where does flavor text fit in the frame of a battle card?

Siege is pushed for room, but even then they can have 1-2 line ability text, and still fit 1-2 lines of flavor.
It looks a bit squeezed at 6 lines, but alt-designs that have 1 line of reminder easily allow a 2 line abilities and 2 lines of flavor.

[Venedrex]

Where does flavor text fit in the frame of a battle card?

Siege is pushed for room, but even then they can have 1-2 line ability text, and still fit 1-2 lines of flavor.
It looks a bit squeezed at 6 lines, but alt-designs that have 1 line of reminder easily allow a 2 line abilities and 2 lines of flavor.

Does this mean what I think it means?

*Rushes to custom cards to check*

AW YEAH. "LOOKS LIKE BATTLES ARE BACK ON THE MENU BOYS!"

Thank you Mr. Feyd_Ruin.

[Feyd_Ruin]

Does this mean what I think it means?

Very very very soon.
There's a couple of bugs I have to fix in the UI for the landscape.
But you can play with it ahead of time if you want:
creator/create/card/?layout=battle

[Rithaniel]

Very very very soon.
There's a couple of bugs I have to fix in the UI for the landscape.
But you can play with it ahead of time if you want:
creator/create/card/?layout=battle

Yo, hype

[bravelion83]

the judge should consider the card as not having been printed with reminder text for the purpose of microtext

Speaking again as the author of the guidelines document, I can say with absolute certainty that this is not the intent. The intent is that the text card is as close as possible to an actual printed card, including the presence or absence of reminder text, or any other text for that matter. No text in a submission should be ignored, because it's as if it were printed on the physical card. A submission in the MCC is essentially a printed card, that has gone through all stages of the design process, including editing. The only thing that's excluded from the process is commissiong the art for the card of course, but for all the rest when you're looking at an MCC submission you're looking at an actual physical (hypothetically) printed card. All the text in the rules box, be it rules text, reminder text, or flavor text (or anything else you can come up with that goes into the text box) is supposed to count for microtext, or for anything in the rubric for that matter. This is the real intent behind the guidelines, and I'd say I know it well as both the author of the version of that document that we use here on Nexus and as the only one of the two creators of the current rubric that's still around. I haven't seen the other one around here for a very long time, at least a couple years if not more, so I guess they're not active in this subforum anymore.

Of course, the host can always adapt the guidelines for the month they're hosting, so if you say that for this round the judges can ignore reminder text, that's the rule for this round or even for the whole month if you say so. I just wanted to point out that it's not the default and that it goes against the intent behind the guidelines. But it's your month, so if you say so, that's how it works for this round. The only thing is that, just like any temporary deviation from the guidelines, it should be mentioned in the round OP.

As for all the rest that you wrote in your reply to my posts from yesterday, I agree on everything else. Thank you for the reply.

[Rithaniel]

The only thing that's excluded from the process is commissiong the art for the card of course

Well, there are certain action that can't be included in the development process of a stand-alone card. These include extensive playtesting and the creation of the environment the card will exist in. This is where reminder text comes into play. Reminder text serves two purposes, both revolving around rebranding of an ability. The first involves taking an ability and giving it a name, to add flavor to the card. Saying that a creature "explores" gives a fun mental image. The second purpose is to condense rules text specifically to avoid microtext issues.

The second purpose works because multiple cards will be printed with the reminder text, allowing players to learn the mechanic so that, when they see it on a card, they don't necessarily need the reminder text there to remind them. In the MCC, we don't have that luxury, but the purposes of reminder text remains the same. We even have a rule that text outside the card in a submission is to be ignored, so a player literally can't include auxiliary cards to illustrate what the reminder text would be on a card that didn't have a microtext issue. So the reminder text has to be on the submission.

We should strive to recognize when reminder text would be excluded on an actual printed card, but is included in a submission to let the reader know what the card is supposed to do, because the way it works in the real world cannot be effectively emulated in a single entry of the MCC. The rule, for custom cards, has always needed to be that we treat reminder text like it isn't there as far as microtext is concerned. Otherwise, there's no reason to put it in parentheses and italics since it's going to need to be written out either way.

I just wanted to point out that it's not the default and that it goes against the intent behind the guidelines.

I would move you to update your guidelines, but that's your call.

[Raptorchan]

August MCC Round 1 is up!

[bravelion83]

My judgments for June Round 4 are finally up. Sorry for the delay. As soon as we have @void_nothing's ones, the winner for June will be declared. Yes, in August. I'm deeply sorry and ashamed for that.

In other news:

The rule, for custom cards, has always needed to be that we treat reminder text like it isn't there as far as microtext is concerned.

That's not the rule I've ever used as a judge. I've always counted all the text in the text box, of any kind, including reminder text, for the purposes of microtext. I can't speak about the rest of the custom cards subforum here, I'm only active in contests and games, so it could be the case that's the rule there and I've never heard of it.

I would move you to update your guidelines, but that's your call.

No, that's not my call, or ar least not my exclusive call to make, and those aren't just my own guidelines, they are this whole subforum's guidelines pertaining to this contest. The guidelines document is the result of years of discussions dating back to when we were on Salvation, and we're talking several years before the move to Nexus (I know because I was there and already heavily involved in this contest), and has been officially approved by this subforum's moderator. I'm just the one who physically put together pieces that were previously found in several different places on Salvation in a single document for Nexus back when Nexus launched, and I did it because that same moderator asked me to do it back then, thinking I was the best person for the job. I didn't actually change a single thing about the contest, I just put back together all the scattered pieces.

The way to make any change(s) to the guidelines document is still the same: discuss the proposed change(s) in depth here in this very thread, test them for at least a couple months, get the new version of the document approved by a moderator, and that's when the change is official and all hosts are expected to apply it in their months from then on. I'm absolutely open to discussing any changes right here and start the process at any time.

Are there any other people who think such an update to the document is needed? Speak up and make it known, and if the discussion gains enough momentum it's then that it will be tested. No one single person can change the guidelines document, not even if that person is me, the one who wrote it. It has to be a somewhat collective request. Again, I'm open to any discussion about any changes at any moment right here. But until it's just a single person, nothing will happen, not even if that person is me.

[Riria]

I've said my opinion. I think that if the goal of the rules is to judge MCC submissions like we would judge official printed cards, then the MCC rules should account for the fact that there are circumstances within official printed cards where reminder texts are missing.

I don't think reminder text should *always* be allowed to be ignored for microtext reasons, because that's not how official cards work, but I don't think it should *never* be allowed to be ignored either, because that's not how official cards work either.

[slimytrout]

Personally, I'm not sure why the discussion here is so focused on reminder text rather than allowing people to define a new mechanic outside of the card box. I agree with @bravelion83 that reminder text should be counted toward microtext -- if someone makes a card with hideaway, they shouldn't be allowed to pretend that the card has three fewer lines of text than it does. On the other hand, I think that if hosts are going to push contestants to work in unused design space (something I think most people on this forum are in favor of) they should be more liberal with giving people permission to add text outside of their submission within certain parameters.

It is clearly the case that R&D doesn't create magic cards in a vacuum -- when they print a card like Invasion of Alara they are doing so because they're confident that the large majority of people who see it will already be aware of how battles/sieges work. That doesn't mean that folks should have free rein to leave off reminder text (Invasion of Alara would certainly get a deduction from me for leaving it off), but it does give folks more flexibility to push boundaries without needing to define an entire new mechanic in reminder text.

[Rithaniel]

Yeah, after reading slimytrout's take, I can see three options:

(1) Let reminder text be "optionally included," giving people the best possible interpretation. If there would be enough room for reminder text, it's treated as included. If there wouldn't be enough room, it's ignored.
(2) Let an explanation of the mechanic be included outside of the main submission.
(3) Require that, if you have a new ability, you have to have included reminder text and it will be counted against microtext.

The only option I really have an issue with is 3, because it's antagonistic to the player. With that option, the players aren't allowed to use reminder text for one of the purposes it is meant for: to reduce microtext. That option being the default is a bad way to do things.

If we're really concerned about the text of the forum post exactly matching the text of the card, option 2 would be a good middle ground. It would allow for people to actually make use of reminder text reduction, while still keeping the proper submission appearance. However, I still hold that option 1 is the best option because it functions the same as option 2, but lacks the unnecessary repeating of the keyword that the reminder text would be for. Like, option 1 you just read the card and, when you're measuring for microtext, you leave out the parenthetical. Option 2 would have the keyword in the submission and then again elsewhere in the post, which is functional, but feels like jumping through hoops just to get an appearance.

I don't think reminder text should *always* be allowed to be ignored for microtext reasons, because that's not how official cards work, but I don't think it should *never* be allowed to be ignored either, because that's not how official cards work either.

My stance on this would be that you always get the microtext reduction in your favor, but if the card is a common or uncommon, needing to rely on the removal of reminder text means that you've made a card which is likely too complex for common or uncommon, so it would come down to a point against viability.

That's not the rule I've ever used as a judge. I've always counted all the text in the text box, of any kind, including reminder text, for the purposes of microtext. I can't speak about the rest of the custom cards subforum here, I'm only active in contests and games, so it could be the case that's the rule there and I've never heard of it.

This might have only been my rule, but I presented it as "what it needs to be" because I solidly believe that it is how reminder text ought to be handled. To be entirely fair, this might spawn from me assuming that my own assumptions are widely held when they aren't.

[Riria]

(1) Let reminder text be "optionally included," giving people the best possible interpretation. If there would be enough room for reminder text, it's treated as included. If there wouldn't be enough room, it's ignored.
(2) Let an explanation of the mechanic be included outside of the main submission.
(3) Require that, if you have a new ability, you have to have included reminder text and it will be counted against microtext.

2 is the worst option in my opinion, because it can influence the judges on giving a higher grade in Elegance than they normally would. I think there's a very good reason why an entry isn't allowed to contain anything but the card, and it's mainly that the design should be able to speak for itself without clarifications.

My stance on this would be that you always get the microtext reduction in your favor, but if the card is a common or uncommon, needing to rely on the removal of reminder text means that you've made a card which is likely too complex for common or uncommon, so it would come down to a point against viability.

I don't think complexity is the only issue. Official cards simply don't skip reminder text on commons and uncommons at all (outside of, like, evergreen and deciduous mechanics), so that should prompt its own separate score penalty. Probably in the Quality category, since it's effectively a formatting error.